OBNOXIOUS DEGREE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18397, 12 May 1923, Page 9

OBNOXIOUS DEGREE.

LEAGUE AND THE SAAB. PUNISHMENT FOR CRITICISM. CONDEMNED BY COMMONS. MINISTERS DOUBT WISDOM. By Teleffraoh—Pros* Association— (Received 5.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. LONDON, May 10. In the House of Commons, Sir John Simon raised the question of the decree of the League of Nations Council, as the responsible body under the Versailles Treaty for the administration of the Saar, making it ian . offeaco punishable by fine or imprisonment to criticise publicly the Treaty of Versailles, or the action of the League. He characterised the decree as extraordinary and a most astonishing abuse of legislative authority. The decree provided for punishment not exceeding five years, and a fine not exceeding ter thousand francs on any person publicly casting discredit on the Versailles Treaty, or insulting the League of Nations. Sir John wished to know what the Government proposed to do to effectively stop proceedings exposing the League to contempt and derision. Mr. E. F. L. Wood. President of the Board of Education, said the originally difficult position in . the Saar had .been immensely complicated by the political reactions of the Ruhr. He Had been advised that from a strictly legal viewpoint the Saar Commission had not gone beyond its treaty rights. The decree did not require the approval or confirmation of the Council, and was justified by the j chairman of the commission on the ground that the condition of 'opinion in the Saar' press, which was subsidised by Germany, was dangerous. : Personally Mr. Wood made no secret of his dislike of the decree, and questioned its wisdom. What the Government now proposed was an impartial inquiry through the League's machinery into the general question of the Saar administration. They would communicate with the States which were members of the Council. Upon their replies future action would depend. Mr. Asquith said he made no complaint of the Ministers' action at the Council, but the decree was a serious matter, affecting the prestige and the moral authority of the . League. One might ransack the records of the Russian treatment of Poland without finding a more monstrous specimen of despotic legislative oppression of ordinary elementary rights of free citizenship. Lord Robert Cecil said the decree was thoroughly bad in principle and ought to be withdrawn immediately. The League Council should be summoned forthwith. Dr. H. A. L. Fisher, ex-President of the Board of Education, said the League of. Nations should discuss the Ruhr, where the situation was becoming more dangerous every hour. Mr. E. D. Morel (Labour) said that France did not want Germany to get on her feet again. She meant to disrupt German industry. .-• ; . Mr. Ronald McNeill, Under-Secretary, for Foreign Affairs, replying to the debate, said the decree had no defenders in that house, and it would not add to the prestige of the League of Nations, but he questioned the wisdom of the course suggested by Mr. Asquith that we should demand its immediate withdrawal. He emphasised the Government's desire . for impartial inquiry into the Saar administration. Regarding the Ruhr, many critics would find their answer in Britain's reply, when it was published. At -bedrock,, our policy was the maintenance of the alliance with France. ! Sir John Simon's motion of protest was defeated by 238 votes to 143.